linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Indicate that we want to force strict DMA for untrusted devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VQEM=Gtzrkd-s_ufzi_Y7b1GPCOVROftmjLDWiMEd0qA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:46:50 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, quic_c_gdjako@...cinc.com,
        "list@....net:IOMMU DRIVERS <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Joerg
        Roedel <joro@...tes.org>," <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
        Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Indicate that we want to force strict DMA for
 untrusted devices

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 04:52:45PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > At the moment the generic IOMMU framework reaches into the PCIe device
> > to check the "untrusted" state and uses this information to figure out
> > if it should be running the IOMMU in strict or non-strict mode. Let's
> > instead set the new boolean in "struct device" to indicate when we
> > want forced strictness.
> >
> > NOTE: we still continue to set the "untrusted" bit in PCIe since that
> > apparently is used for more than just IOMMU strictness. It probably
> > makes sense for a later patchset to clarify all of the other needs we
> > have for "untrusted" PCIe devices (perhaps add more booleans into the
> > "struct device") so we can fully eliminate the need for the IOMMU
> > framework to reach into a PCIe device.
>
> It feels like the iommu code should not be messing with pci devices at
> all, please don't do this.

I think it's generally agreed that having the IOMMU code reach into
the PCIe code is pretty non-ideal, but that's not something that my
patch series added. The IOMMU code already has special cases to reach
into PCIe devices to decide strictness. I was actually trying to
reduce the amount of it.

> Why does this matter?  Why wouldn't a pci device use "strict" iommu at
> all times?  What happens if it does not?  Why are PCI devices special?

This is something pre-existing in Linux. In my patch series I was
trying to make PCI devices less special and take some of the concepts
from there and expand them, but in a cleaner way. It sounds like in my
v2 I should steer away from this and leave the existing PCI hacks
alone.

-Doug